Canon 35/1.5?

[matt fury]

So, basically, I need a fast 35 to go with my RD-1s. There doesn't seem to be a lot of options out there (Not a big fan of the CV offerings, unfortunately). So what's the word on this lens? Super rare/expensive? How's it perform wide-open? Any info you got would be appreciated..thanks!

 

[dexdog]

Raid tested this lens this past May as part of his wide-angle test. You may be able to find it in a search of the RFF archives. Also, RFF member Trittium has a flickr link posted under his RFF signature that has a lot of pics taken with the Canon 35/1.5. Definately worth checking out.

My opinion on performance wide-open is that it exhibits a unique fuzzy/swirly OOF. The rendition is not unpleasant, but is unusual. A more "normal" look would be obtained with the Canon 35/2. Rare and expensive? It is not particularly common, usually sells for about 600 USD on eBay.

 

[Sonnar2]

Better than any other Canon wideangle at f/2.8. Center-sharp at f/1.5 with bad light falloff to the edges - similar to an old Leitz 35/1.4 - but this shouldn't matter on a RD1.
The big front glass will collect stray light at sidelight without a hood and get quite strong ghost pictures. The price of speed! Dunno how the C/V 35/1.2 acts here!
Very strong at f/8 in simple light conditions, warm color tones too. I like the OOF more than of the 35/2. This lens is underrated when called a collectors piece.

 

[trittium]

You can draw conclusions from my flickr set
http://flickr.com/photos/trittium/sets/72157600057844524/

 

[Terao]

There has been talk of the Canon lenses not focussing accurately on the R-D1 (not sure if its front or back focus). Shouldn't be too much of an issue with a 35 but I guess it might be wide-open. I think there was a thread about it either in this forum or the R-D1 forum. Either way I haven't seen it with my 50mm f/1.2 but then its not always easy to tell whether its user or gear error with something that fast and long...

 

[raid]

The 35mm/1.5 is a good lens to have for portraits. Its bokeh is not a standard one, as Mark has pointed out above. It is more for collectors, considering its $600 tag. A less expensive alternative is a Canon 35mm/1.8 or the 35mm/2.0. The latter lenses are sharper overall.

 

[Chad]

I am fond of this lens but I would not pay the going price for one (about $550). One of my favorite pictures I took with this lens wide open. It is pretty soft at f/1.5 (no suprise) but is nice at the other aperatures. Also, its very compact. A few months ago I posted a comparison picture of it next to a VC 50/1.5.

What is your aversion to VC lenses?



Chad

 

[Sonnar2]

500-600 USD isn't expensive for the fastest 35mm lens ever produced in screwmount, IMHO. What do you gonna pay for a 1st-gen- Summilux 35/1.4? Or do you gonna compare it with the monster C/V 35/1.2 twice that length?

 

[matt fury]

Seems like I'm going to have to keep my eye out for one of these. I also asked about the early 35 Summilux, and it seems to have more issues (or at least more critics), plus it's about twice as expensive.

I don't know what it is, but the bokeh & overall signature most of the CV lenses just doesn't work for me. It could all just be in my head, but I still have to deal with it. Otherwise, I would just get the 40/1.4 and tap dance through life. Plus, I feel that the 1.7 is closer to f/2 than 1.4 and the f/1.2 is freaking monstrous. This is going to be my main lens. I mean, I could live with that size for a Noctilux, but I'm not in love with the Cosina enough to lug it around every night.

And re: R-D1/Canon focus issues: My 50/1.5 has behaved alright so far, but the focusing error could just be counteracting my own bad focusing lol.